5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Mielec.
6.  The applicant is married and has two children. Prior to her application for an early‑retirement pension she had been employed until April 1999 and paid social security contributions to the State.
7.  On 6 September 2001 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to be granted the right to an early‑retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so‑called “EWK” pension”.
8.  Along with her application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning her son’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist medical centre. The certificate stated that the child (born in 1992) suffered from allergy and asthma and that he had been in need of his parent’s constant care.
9.  On 19 November 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board (“the SSB”) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension as of 1 November 2001 in the net amount of 788 Polish zlotys (PLN).
10.  On 22 August 2002 Rzeszów Social Security Board asked the Main Social Security Board’s doctor (Główny Lekarz Orzecznik) to inform it whether the applicant’s son required the permanent care of a parent. On 30 August 2002 the doctor stated that, on the basis of the medical documents, the child could not be considered as ever having required such care.
11.  On 4 September 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued simultaneously two decisions in respect of the applicant. By virtue of one decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect. By virtue of the other decision, the Board reopened the proceedings, revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the Cabinet’s Ordinance of 15 May 1989 on the right to early retirement of employees raising children who require permanent care (Rozporządzenie Rady Ministrów z dn. 15 maja 1989 w sprawie uprawnień do wcześniejszej emerytury pracowników opiekujących się dziećmi wymagającymi stałej opieki) (“the 1989 Ordinance”).
12.  The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting her of the right to an early‑retirement pension. She submitted that she should receive the benefit because her child required constant care, as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the applicant’s original application for a pension. Moreover, the applicant alleged that the revocation of her retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights.
13.  On 30 October 2003 the Rzeszow Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The Regional Court concluded on the basis of the evidence, including a medical expert opinion, that while indeed the applicant’s child suffered from allergy and asthma he did not require his mother’s permanent care since her health condition did not significantly impair her bodily functions. The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of her right to a pension under the scheme provided by the 1989 Ordinance as she did not satisfy the requirement of necessary permanent care.
14.  The applicant further appealed against the first‑instance judgment.
15.  On 31 March 2004 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the appeal.
16.  The applicant did not lodge a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.
17.  Following the social security proceedings the applicant was not ordered to return her early‑retirement benefits paid by the Social Security Board, despite the revocation of her right to an early‑retirement pension.
18.  The applicant submitted that after the revocation of the EWK pension she had not received any unemployment or other benefits from the State. She was also not able to find a job.
19.  The Government submitted that the applicant had been unemployed since 1999. After the revocation of her EWK pension the applicant was covered by the social security scheme for farmers. She did not take up an employment. The applicant and her family owned a little farm.
20.  In addition, the Government submitted information as regards the various types of social benefits available in Poland. However, they did not specify which of those benefits, if any, were available in the applicant’s situation.
21.  Under the relevant laws currently in force, it appears that the applicant will qualify for a regular retirement pension in 2021.
22.  Some 130 applications arising from a similar fact pattern have been brought to the Court. The majority of the applicants form the Association of Victims of the SSB (Stowarzyszenie Osób Poszkodowanych przez ZUS) (“the Association”), an organisation monitoring the practices of the Social Security Board in Poland, in particular in the Podkarpacki region.
23.  Out of all applications lodged with the Court, about twenty‑four applicants decided not to lodge a cassation appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal given in their case.
24.  One hundred‑and‑four applicants lodged cassation appeals against the final judgments given in their cases. The Supreme Court entertained and dismissed on the merits fifteen appeals. In eighty‑one applications the Supreme Court refused to entertain cassation appeals on the ground that they did not raise any important legal issues or require the Supreme Court to give a new interpretation to legal provisions which raised serious doubts or gave rise to ambiguity in the jurisprudence of the domestic courts. In the remaining eight cases cassation appeals were rejected for failure to comply with various procedural requirements.